Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday October 19, 2008 @03:37PM
from the move-over-bob-cummings dept.

We discussed Terrafugia's plans for what they don't like to call a "flying car" — rather a "roadable aircraft" — lastspring. The Boston Globe has an update on Massachusetts-based Terrafugia and its fight to get airborne in these parlous times. "The last serious attempt to bring a car-airplane hybrid to market was the Aerocar, in 1949. According to Carl Dietrich, chief executive of Terrafugia, that company built six prototypes. It needed 500 orders in order to gear up for mass production, but it never got there... 'It can be hard to explain the value of this to non-pilots,' Dietrich says, 'but when you're a pilot, the problems of high costs, limited mobility on the ground, and weather sensitivity are in your face, all the time.' The company says more than 50 of the vehicles have been pre-ordered. The target price is $198,000."

I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

It's not supposed to be "for the lay driver in 3D traffic", but it IS for the pilot to "Fly somewhere thus dodging traffic". Yes, that car rental problem at the end of a flight is a bear hidden trap that doe seriously add a cost to trips. This is practically the "Holy Grail" of transport.

1. Punch in the place you want to be.2. It "dials" to see which of the [X] receiving platforms are unoccupied there3. Magic happens.4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.

As long as I'm dreaming I'd like a pony and a fully functional gynoid with a remote control.

> 4. You're standing on a teleport pad roughly where you want to be, get off, and someone else probably arrives soon after you.

4b. Alternatively, due to a slight miscalculation of departure times somebody is teleported to your location while you are still on the teleport pad, instantly accelerating the atoms formerly known as "your body" into all directions away from their former positions in a bloody explosion.

1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one?2: how much will this cost to insure (i'm betting a lot, particularlly for fully comprehensive cover)3: how long will it take to convert between airplane and car modes?

In summary will it really be cheaper and/or more conviniant than hiring a car at your destination airport?

1: how much extra will a roadable airplane cost compared to a normal one?

The people who want to build the aircraft mentioned in TFA plan to sell it for about $200k. A used, but very serviceable, two seat "regular" airplane can be bought for around $20k to $30k and a four-place for about $40k to $50k. So, the roadable airplane seems to cost between 4x and 10x as much as a normal one. And, if having a new airplane is important to you, you could spend $120k for a brand new Cessna Skycatcher, which comes from a company with an established track record of building reliable airplanes--and doing it profitably, which means that spare parts will continue to be available for many decades that well-maintained airplanes last.

For the price of a new roadable airplane, you could buy a used normal plane and have enough left over for a few luxury cars (or a whole fleet of Civics/Fits/Corollas/Yarii) to park at your most frequent destinations. Consider also that a normal airplane, because it doesn't need to make so many compromises, will be better at being an airplane than this roadable plane will. And the same goes for the normal car being a car.

Holy shit, really? I've been looking into planes (like Cessnas) and they were more towards the $100K range for a four seater. I want to get my pilot's license and a four seater aircraft, but they're usually over $100K. How do you find them for half that?

You have to buy an older model plane. Have a look on Aerotrader.com sometime, you can get a mid-to-late 70's model Skylane or similar craft for around $40-$50k. As mentioned, properly maintained aircraft can last decades, so the only compromise you get in buying a plane that old is you don't get all the "bells and whistles" that a new model has. But you can (fairly) easily upgrade the avionics a bit at a time.

I don't think comparing new to used is fair, so lets look at your new prices - $200k vs $120k. That means you're spending about $80k extra getting a road-certified plane - probably a bit more in reality as parts are likely to cost more, etc.

You suggest purchasing a car for each airport that you plan on flying this plane to. Lets say you purchase just two cars for $15k each, using rentals whenever you go anywhere else so you've now got a buffer of $50k. How much will you pay in hanger fees, car fees, and car storage fees, not to mention maintaince on three veichles instead of one?

$300/month seems fairly conservative for hanger fees. Add a couple hundred extra for the car fees and your Cessna is looking at being more expensive after about eight years.

How many rental-car miles can you get for $80,000? Realistically, most people fly frequently to a small handful of locations, where they should probably enter into a car co-op with some other people, and share one of those econoboxes, and pick up the rest of the slack with rentals.

Parent is correct. Ground transportation at the destination is the EXACT purpose of this form of machine. That's why they're not advertising it as a flying car. Because it's not. It's an airplane that can legally drive on roads to get you to your hotel or a cheap parking garage. (Hanger fees are exorbitant.)

this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool

I should hope that anything that flys, regardless of how popular it becomes, still requires a pilots license and that the skill needed to attain such a license remain quite high. Lay drivers manage to kill 43,443 people in 2007. [car-accidents.com] I don't want to see what the statistics would be if people were text, putting on makeup, eating, yelling at the kids in the backseat, playing with the radio, fighting off sleep, etc. w

I should hope that anything that flys, regardless of how popular it becomes, still requires a pilots license and that the skill needed to attain such a license remain quite high. Lay drivers manage to kill 43,443 people in 2007.

Absolutely correct! Most people are horrible pilots of anything they operate and make poor transportation decisions. They do whatever they want, with little regard for what the people around them are doing. Every region has different ways of driving poorly, but in my region of Texas, they don't know how to maintain speed while cornering or going up hills, they don't know how to merge or yield, they don't signal their lane changes or turns, they drive at night like they are night blind, they drive either 8 mph under the speed limit or 15 mph over the speed limit, they blare loud music out of their vehicles, they swerve across 3+ lanes of traffic at the last minute to take an exit or entrance ramp, they use all available space to make a turn (even breaking State law to make a right-hand turn across as many road lanes as are available), they tailgate, they sit at red lights blocking the right-turn lane from turning because they won't make the legally-allowed right-hand turn on red, they won't make a left turn on a solid green light (they have to have a green arrow, or they won't even attempt the turn), they pace vehicles, especially while driving in the other driver's blind spot. In the last few weeks, I've encountered several drivers who simply stop and remain in the middle of the road whenever they have a problem, even in a 45 mph zone. The concept of a free flow of traffic is alien to most Texas drivers, and many of them drive like they have spent their lives on a country road without having to consider other drivers.

Texas drivers are mostly annoying, and only somewhat hazardous. In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious. If you signal a lane change, they usually will attempt to block you from changing lanes.

I've long said that when flying cars become marketable, I'm installing an anti-aircraft gun in my front yard.

In Virginia, especially closer to D.C., the drivers are more ruthless, more vicious...

In the Boston area, we practice the "I don't see you" game when merging. The driver with the shittiest car wins. I bet that's what you're running into on the Beltway. I recall driving a '75 Chrysler New Yorker around Cambridge (dents everywhere, front bumper wired together, tape on the tail lights), and it was amazing how smoothly I was able to merge into traffic. Then when I got a job and bought a new car -- suddenly

You must be near a city. When I visit my parents out in the hill country, drivers are very courteous and aware. Slower traffic pulls to the shoulder to let faster traffic by, most people signal a "thanks" for getting a break, etc. Yeah, there are a few bozos, but not like here in the northeast.

The same idea apply to sailing open water, yet I have seen boats run right into buoys and over other boats' anchor lines. I've seen sailors lock the wheel and then run below decks to grab something, leaving the boat going full speed with no one at the wheel. In open water, I frequently lock the wheel (I stay on deck) and eat a sandwich or apply sunscreen or whatever. On open water at times it can be difficult to remember to look up every fifteen seconds, getting sidetracked is easy. There is a salty saying "There's three types of sailors: those who've gone aground; those who haven't, but are going to; and liars." [48north.com] The danger isn't in the featureless open space, it's near the destinations, navigation points, and obstacles. That's where the degree of attention required changes more quickly than is often accounted for. Everyone gets used to a big open space and they lose the focus to avoid the easiest obstacles, that's why I sited such common driver distractions as putting on make up, talking on the phone, and yelling at the kids in the back. Drivers do these things now, with something that demands as much attention as highway driving, and I think that a less demanding environment would exacerbate these behaviors and habits, making those drivers completely unaware of when they were entering a situation that demanded more attention. Compare your own level of focus between driving on a long straight stretch of road vs a winding road.

Here's the thing. Big Sky Theory only works outside of airways (official, and unofficial) and especially outside airport circuits. Inside the circuit, the pilot is rather busy getting setup for landing, running through checks, at uncontrolled fields they need to ascertain the runway in use, wind conditions etc.. unfortunately so are the other 10 aircraft all converging on that small piece of airspace. This is when most mid-air collisions happen, not in the big sky, but in the little patches above airports.

You're right. They had to do a lot of engineering to build an airplane that can back up, has proper brake lights, etc, etc, etc... and keep it light enough to fly. FYI, the maximum takeoff weight of a fully loaded Cessna 172 is 1043kg. A Chevrolet Aveo -- an extremely small and light car -- weighs in at 1066kg with no payload whatsoever including driver, fuel, or fuzzy dice.

I'm not sure that's a valid market. Smaller airports frequently have a courtesy car they will lone you for a few hours if you fill up the plane with gas at their FBO, many FBOs even list this fact in their AFD listing. Failing that, the typical cost of renting a car for a day is less than half the typical cost of renting a small plane for an *hour* or if you own the plane, a little over the cost of an hours fuel burn at cruise, and most rental car places will bring the car to you. IAAPP (I Am A Private P

If you're seriously thinking about a powered parachute, you should know that they typically get a top speed of about 31 MPH and a stall speed of about 29 MPH. There is not a lot in between. You wouldn't want to fly something like this in anything more than a light breeze.

You ought to take a look at terrain and airspace. A quick reminder: you're not allowed to conduct operations under Part 103 over urban areas.

I would think long and hard before considering the use of any ultra-light aircraf

The market for flying cars is vanishingly small. It makes a lot more sense to make special towns than to try and build a limited-production car which car which converts into a 'plane, along with all the compromises and complications that entails. It'll be a horrible 'plane and an even w

I assume that the target market for this type of vehicle isn't the lay driver who wants a "flying car" to dodge traffic and be cool, it's the private pilot who wants to be able to fly somewhere and not have to worry about ground transportation at the receiving end.

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

It is this exactly.

Even though I'm a pilot, and even though I have access to relatively inexpensive aircraft for short to medium distance travel, I still find myself driving instead when I could fly because I'll need the car when I get there. In the end, driving only adds a few extra hours each way, reduces safety only slightly, and the cost is comparable. So I might as well drive and not have to worry about whether I'll be able to find a reasonable car at the other airport.

If I were a pilot, that's what would keep me from actually using a small plane to get around -- because unless my business was at the airport, I'd be stuck.

Yeah it would be great if they would invent some way to rent a car. Oh and before you give me the spiel about small airports having no rental counter, most rental companies will deliver to your location.

But all joking aside, this "roadable aircraft" has a range of 400nm and costs $200K. Compare that with a Cessna 162 SkyCatcher which will get you 470nm range at $120K. So the roadable costs you an additional $80K.

Your attempt at being funny fails. The abbreviation "nm" has long been a standard for nautical miles, too.

We all know that. See, "nm" has two possible meanings, and he intentionally chose the one that lead to a ridiculous outcome instead of the one that was obviously intended. This is what is called in humor circles "a joke", and yes it was funny.

Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Avoidance. Sadly, the roads, and soon (?) the skies might be filled with mouthbreathers who operate on the Ethernet (Carrier Sense, Multiple Access, Collision Detection) model. Who the hell would ever insure on of these? Lloyd's of London ?

Sorry, my friend. Google tells me that my cult of podner-using fanatics is around 20,000 results strong. That aligns with my opinion as to just who would use podner and who would use "pardner" and get shot. City slickers.Also, I'm guessing you think I mistook Parlous for some other word or something...? I don't really understand why you felt the need to bring Bartleby-san into this discussion.

The flying car, so far, does not work well and crossing the two types of vehicle guarantees a shit result. The shit result may be entertaining, but that is all. Running articles about flying cars on/. only appeals to the technically naive who have some respect for the

Is prototypes work, and work well. They're too expensive right now, but they have the range, safety, and power necessary. The government just has no structure to deal with it, and the FAA is far too rigid and geared toward a completely different paradigm.

The crucial difference between moller's models and concepts like this is he doesn't try to work off either an automobile or aircraft chassis.

Not that I consider myself a likely customer but it seems to me that this is the kind of research and development into low cost aircraft that will likely improve the pool of technologies and techniques available to all of us.

I think that we see a lot of stories on/. about tech projects that we are in favor of but where we're not going to buy the product and few or none of us are in a position to become investors. Maybe it would be a good idea for/. to have an opt-in feature of a Donate To This Project

But I think that there are an awful lot of projects where if we/.ers had the chance to easily contribute a few bucks when we saw a story about a project we liked, it would add up to serious money fast. I would opt in. I

The means to do this were invented centuries ago; it's called joint-stock corporation. In the USA these days though, overregulation has made it impractical to sell shares in a new venture to the public unless you're trying to raise tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Gosh. I remember seeing this done a long time ago. It's really simple to do. In fact, you can use spare parts from around your house to build it...that is if you live in an old house with a large fireplace hood. The vehicle may look a little strange and make funny sounds while driving down the road, but you can always sing a little tune to mask the sound. Sorta sounds like, Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. You get used to it.

"Those are two very attractive selling points for the retiree pilot who is cashed up with a cabin on a lake but may not be able to pass the medical requires for a private license any more."

Great. Not only do we have to dodge the dodderers on the road, but we'll have falling gummers to deal with too.Not meeting medical standards is a hint to stay on the ground or let someone else do the piloting.

Hell yes. I know a guy who needs to go through a bunch of crap every single year because he once had hepatitis C. What does once having had hepatitis C (he is now cured) have to do with your ability to fly an airplane? Jack diddly squat, that's what.

The FAA has different medical requirements for different types of aircraft for a reason. There's no point in holding yourself to a higher standard than what the FAA requires. If you still feel good enough to fly but would fail a higher-class medical on a techni

I have no idea, it was just a guess. I agree with you that having Hep-C does not seem like a reason to have your medical yanked. This link [faa.gov] provides some insight as to the why. It talks about treatments and so forth.

I had a Kidney stone once and I had to go through all kinds of tests and this that and the other, before I could get it re-issued. If you have ever had to deal with a Kidney Stone you would understand why. The pain came on within an hour and it put me on the ground it was so bad. Relief only

Yes but if you know in advance that you'll fail, and instead simply don't get a new medical, you can continue to fly in a category which does not require one.

Now, the rule that says that you can fly Light Sport without a medical but you can't fly if you've been denied a medical truly makes no sense. But if you can get out ahead of time so that your medical simply lapses instead of failing it, you're still in fine shape. And my understanding is that you can continue to fly gliders (including motorgliders wit

I'm familiar with those rules. However, they are written in a foreign language that I have great difficulty understanding so I don't trust my own interpretation, and the interpretations I've heard from other people have varied quite a bit.

I see your point, its a catch 22 in many, but not all regards; however, these things are being marketed as commuter vehicles that transition from flight configuration to road configuration.

Personally I think they should be classified as any Cessna 152/172 should be classified as a GA aircraft that require a Third Class medical Certificate [gpoaccess.gov] because these things are going to be flown into civil airports near major business centers that have large population densities. If you don't like that, ammend the rules

I'm not sure I understand. If it falls under the Light Sport rules, why not allow it to be flown under the same restrictions as other Light Sport aircraft? Those can be flown even into class B airspace with the proper endorsements. Relatively large and high performance touring motorgliders can as well, and don't even have the requirement to be healthy enough to obtain a driver's license.

Maybe its just me, but it looks like changing lanes must be a bitch in this thing. The foldable wings are huge obstructions to both the driver and the teeny tiny side mirrors. Of course, I haven't sat in one, so I don't exactly have first hand experience.

Before you say anything else, yes I am a licensed pilot so here we go...

Parking by brail. Yes I am sure you have all heard about it and I am quite sure most of you have done it to one degree or another. That is when you just touch the car behind or in front of you while trying to parallel park. The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.

Now arguably people that buy one of these will be pretty well-off in the money department, but if they want to use it as intended they have to drive the thing through all kinds of traffic with the hazards therein.

There are unprotected control surfaces on both ends of the beast. One commuter reading the paper or reaching for their coffee bumps you and you now have damaged control surfaces and again the machine is grounded.

The wings are hinged to retract and fold. When winds are folded and not locked together the only structural stiffness is the hinges. Just that thought gives me pause. Drive the Mass Pike or any other commuter road lately? I don't know about yours but mine have serious potholes and undulations, not to mention serious stop and go driving with a lot of hard braking. I just cannot see this thing standing up to the kind of beating your car takes on a daily basis.

Safety... I cannot imagine how they are going to get this thing through the DOT when clearly in order for this thing to fly it has to be made out of some seriously light weight materials. So it is pretty much going to have almost no crash protection, side impact bracing, airbags, etc etc because all that adds a lot of weight. They do state on their website that it is "Designed to automotive crash safety standards", yet they do not say that is has passed DOT standards as yet.

Useful load, they are pretty careful not to say what the useful load is. Useful load is the weight the aircraft can carry. They do not state the empty weight of the aircraft. They do state a MAX Gross takeoff weight of 1320 lbs, and a full fuel load of 120 lbs. They do claim it can carry two passengers. The weight of an FAA "Adult" is 175lbs. So the useful weight is more then likely not much more then 500 lbs. This would put the empty weight at about 820 lbs.

Ok, so just how much impact safety can you build into something that has to be 820 lbs or less? IMO not much. So even if the thing manages to become street legal, I am for one am not driving it on the road, because it will just be CRUSHED by a 3300 lb VW Jetta or Passat, or Lexus or whatever, never mind a bus or a water delivery truck. This thing will more then likely cause more then a few accidents out of sheer novelty as people stair at it rather then pay attention to their driving.

That brings to mind insurance. Now insurance for aircraft is a lot like cars, it is broken down into the Airplane itself and Liability. From the liability POV I don;t think it would be that bad, but from the collision aka Comprehensive POV if I was an insurance company, I would either not insure your airplane while in operation of roads, or I would charge you a massive premium for the reasons I listed above. Any kind of a minor fender bender will render this thing non-airworthy and require a trip to a FBO ( Fixed Base Operator ) to have an A&P have a look at it. And since it is more then likely constructed of mostly composite materials, there are probably no A&P's who can repair it. They will just ground it and tell you to call the factory.

Trust me, I like the idea, I think it is very cool, but as presented there are a whole boatload of problems that will have to be overcome. I much prefer the older idea of a car that you attach the flying part to, then take off to your destination. When you get there, the flying part detaches and is stored until you return to fly back to where ever you came from.

The thing is, with aircraft, if you graze anything or your aircraft is grazed by anything else, much less dented, the aircraft is instantly grounded until inspected by an A&P ( Airframe and Power Plant mechanic) and certified as being once again airworthy. So parking will be a pit of a problem.

Got cite? IAAP and I've never so much as heard of such a thing. My fellow pilots frequently shrug off such minor damage if it's obvious it hasn't damaged the structure. Maybe they're all just violating the regs (wouldn't be the first time) but it seems unlikely.

Hey there.... Well, they are not technically breaking the rules because:

CFR 14.91.7(a) states: "No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition."

CFR 14.91.7(b) states: "The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur."

Well I agree with your general point, that you would want to thoroughly inspect anything that had been "bumped" by another vehicle. But your wording was vastly more general than that. I've seen aircraft being flown immediately after getting whacked with small personal items, and even after taking out a runway light. If you bump it with your car then you should probably have it looked at by a professional, but there's a lot of stuff that can graze your plane without really creating the need for an inspection

Yes I am sure you have all heard about it and I am quite sure most of you have done it to one degree or another. That is when you just touch the car behind or in front of you while trying to parallel park.

I have to say this, I've never done that in my years of driving. Hopefully the sorts of people who can't park without hitting other cars don't fly anyway.

Instead of making some roadworthy cars into flying models that get fuel efficiency measured in "gallons per mile", not "miles per gallon", much more practical would be amphibious cars.

Yes, amphibious cars also get lower mileage than road cars, but since we're using up all the fuel to generate a Greenhouse that will continue to wash out roads and even submerge islands, the amphibious car is a lot more practical. And one that sinks will probably limit its damage to only the driver and passengers, not the stri

while driving at 65 MPH, since this is a known cause of many traffic accidents.

Now, those same people can do their stupid little routines while flying at 10,000 feet and going about 155 MPH. We already have reckless/agressive drivers with road rage, and that's bad enough. Now they'll be able to be assholes *in the air*.

but i have come to understand what problems private plane owners have to face.

One is cost. Flying from A to B in your own plane is incredibly expensive. You usually pay higher landing fees, parking/storage fees, even fuel prices at an airport other than your own. Not yet counting cost of getting to and from the airport to your final destination.

Gliders always have had the distinct advantage that they are meant to be taken apart and loaded onto a trai

Renting a car is fine if you're flying somewhere where such is available.

When I used to fly little Cessna 152s around the place we would often land at "airfields" that were little more than converted sheep paddocks with a gas pump off to the side. The nearest rental car place would have been 100 miles in any direction you cared to choose.

For that kind of flying, something like this would be practically nirvana. For flying between international airports, yes stick with the rental Chrysler or something...

For the record, you can fit two standard bicycles in the back of a 152 if you pull the wheels off. I've flown from the front range of Colorado to the airstrip nearest Moab, Utah, ridden into town, spent two days riding the local trails, then ridden back to the airport and flown back home.

The big brother of this approach is Martin Hollman's Stallion [aircraftdesigns.com] homebuilt aircraft, which can either fit six people, or him and his wife and a Honda Goldwing motorcycle, wheeled up the tailramp.Now *that* is the way to trave

Picture? That little thing right under the title of the article is a "Video!!!" Video is a series of picture chained together chronologically. It's a really cool invention, kind of like that Roadable Aircraft that the "Video" is showing.